Continuation Part II - Cold Fusion Claims

[Dancing David]

I am still puzzled about the "laws of physics" comments. You have not seen 'Dark matter' but there it is, repelling regular matter in an explanation of an observed phenomenon. What laws might that be violating? Quantum entanglement

Nice hand wave and strawman argument.

neutrinos are dark matter as well as other particles that don't interact with the EM fields.

So since Fermi proposed them, neutrinos have been shown to exist.

Where is your new physics?

experiments say that something strange is happening. Where are the laws of physics when you need them to untangle things?
Rossi is not saying anything so radical, only that under the conditions of his experiment, heat is produced that is not chemical. Certainly, if the phenomenon is proved to be real, it will keep everyone busy trying to figure out what is going on. I expect that another mechanism for energy release will be found under the conditions of the experiment.

If I have two atoms of a radioactive element, which one will disintegrate first?

How exactly and when did he demonstrate that heat production?
Still water bath and metered inputs yet?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Rossi is not saying anything so radical, only that under the conditions of his experiment, heat is produced that is not chemical.

Which shows that you haven't read his patent. He does, in fact, identify the source of heat as chemical reactions.

Could you please start paying attention?

 

[Horatius]

Which shows that you haven't read his patent. He does, in fact, identify the source of heat as chemical reactions.

In fact, he identifies the source of heat as being virtually anything that might produce heat, meaning it could literally be anything at all, including our posited resistive heater. He's backed so far off his LENR claims in this patent application that he's literally claimed any possible reaction ever discovered can be used in his device:

Any suitable reactive material that produces energy (e.g. chemical, thermal, electromagnetic, and/or nuclear) in response to the thermal and/or electromagnetic input from the resistance wires 16 and/or other source of input energy may be used.

Which leaves me wondering exactly what it is that he thinks is "inventive" about his device. The mechanical and electrical engineering is nothing remarkable, so what exactly is he trying to patent?

 

[Aepervius]

Which leaves me wondering exactly what it is that he thinks is "inventive" about his device. The mechanical and electrical engineering is nothing remarkable, so what exactly is he trying to patent?

Gullibility maybe ?


If so a lot of people can claim prior art.

 

[ben m]

So since Fermi proposed them, neutrinos have been shown to exist.

Also: at the time Fermi proposed them, he had

a) A lot of reproducible observations, from independent sources, of a phenomenon which was better explained with neutrinos than without.

b) an explanation of why the neutrinos were consistent with all other experiments. Fermi didn't have to say, e.g., "these were not seen by Henri Becquerel because he was a blinker-wearing ivory-tower dogmatist". He would have said "the neutrinos have a low cross section for interacting with Becquerel's films."

Meanwhile, Rossi has:

a) A claim of "excess heat with no radiation" backed by so little evidence that numerous avowed cold fusion aficionados think it's a lie, and

b) Whatever "new physics" he's invoking would have to be something incredibly strongly coupled to everything, making it genuinely inconceivable that it has escaped detection over two centuries of high-precision experiments, an idea so crazy that Rossi can't even find a vixra-level crackpot willing to make something up for him.

 

[Dancing David]

Quite true!

Didn't it solve a quandary of beta decay?

 

[Didymus]

Quite true!

Didn't it solve a quandary of beta decay?

Postulating the neutrino explained why the betas produced by beta decay didn't all have the same energy. Physicists used hypothetical neutrinos to solve problems for 25 years before neutrinos were first experimentally observed.
This probably encourages the Rossi apologists as it shows how one can invent and profitably use new physics before it is proved to be real. Of course you have to know what you are doing which presents a certain difficulty.

 

[Giordano]

Also: at the time Fermi proposed them, he had

a) A lot of reproducible observations, from independent sources, of a phenomenon which was better explained with neutrinos than without.

b) an explanation of why the neutrinos were consistent with all other experiments. Fermi didn't have to say, e.g., "these were not seen by Henri Becquerel because he was a blinker-wearing ivory-tower dogmatist". He would have said "the neutrinos have a low cross section for interacting with Becquerel's films."

Meanwhile, Rossi has:

a) A claim of "excess heat with no radiation" backed by so little evidence that numerous avowed cold fusion aficionados think it's a lie, and

b) Whatever "new physics" he's invoking would have to be something incredibly strongly coupled to everything, making it genuinely inconceivable that it has escaped detection over two centuries of high-precision experiments, an idea so crazy that Rossi can't even find a vixra-level crackpot willing to make something up for him.

Well stated.

I think a simple test for these "new" concepts of physics, the "They laughed at Einstein!" concepts is (three parts):

1. Does the new theory help explain previously observed facts even better than pre-existing theories? That is good.

2. Does the new theory go against multiple, key facts that have already been observed? Contradicting multiple. well-established facts is bad.

and

3. Does the new theory make predictions that can be experimentally verified by other researchers totally independently of the person proposing the theory and who have no financial stake in it? This is essential

Notably even the most exotic of the accepted physics theory, including relativity and quantum mechanics, scored well in terms of these 3 questions. Cold fusion not well at all. Then, given human nature, you could even add a fourth part:

4. Is the person proposing the theory likely to obtain a large amount of money from it, and are they dismissive of scientists and instead seek to convince people who money, but have little or no knowledge of the scientific concepts?

 

[Horatius]

Postulating the neutrino explained why the betas produced by beta decay didn't all have the same energy. Physicists used hypothetical neutrinos to solve problems for 25 years before neutrinos were first experimentally observed.
This probably encourages the Rossi apologists as it shows how one can invent and profitably use new physics before it is proved to be real. Of course you have to know what you are doing which presents a certain difficulty.

Exactly. This is what I was talking about when I said a patent requires an "enabling disclosure" to be valid, even if the theory of operation is unknown.

At the time X-rays were discovered, no one knew what they were, but anyone with the right equipment could show they were there, and what properties they had.

At the time Radium was discovered, no one knew what its source of energy was, but again, everyone with the right equipment could reproduce the results.

In fact, the modern history of nuclear physics pretty much exemplifies what we're talking about. Many experiments produced surprising results that were not predicted, but which could be reproduced at will once the methods were known. And when that happened, the theories of physics were altered to accommodate not only the new experiments, but all the old ones as well. Cold Fusion purports to do the same, but without actually producing any reproducible results. It's a near-perfect example of science vs. pseudoscience.

 

[Giordano]

Exactly. This is what I was talking about when I said a patent requires an "enabling disclosure" to be valid, even if the theory of operation is unknown.

At the time X-rays were discovered, no one knew what they were, but anyone with the right equipment could show they were there, and what properties they had.

At the time Radium was discovered, no one knew what its source of energy was, but again, everyone with the right equipment could reproduce the results.

In fact, the modern history of nuclear physics pretty much exemplifies what we're talking about. Many experiments produced surprising results that were not predicted, but which could be reproduced at will once the methods were known. And when that happened, the theories of physics were altered to accommodate not only the new experiments, but all the old ones as well. Cold Fusion purports to do the same, but without actually producing any reproducible results. It's a near-perfect example of science vs. pseudoscience.

Perhaps this would be a good place to mention "N-rays" as an example of how certain inventors can fool themselves, and their adherents. In fact, as far as I know, the early believers in N-rays were not motivated by seeking to make a fortune from them.

Science is full of examples of surprising theories that nonetheless fit the known observations (or at least didn't grossly violate them) and that predicted experimental tests that could be performed by even skeptical researchers. These theories were widely accepted once the tests verified the predictions of the new theory. Surprising theories that obviously violate known facts, and that can only be successfully tested by the creator of the theory and their accolades, haven't faired so well.

 

[Didymus]

Perhaps this would be a good place to mention "N-rays". . .

Thanks, saved me doing it!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Pteridine, are you Rossi?

 

[Craig B]

Pteridine, are you Rossi?

That has occurred to me, but stylistic differences argue against the hypothesis.

Pteridine

All you do is whine about Rossi being a felon. Green cards are not issued to felons. Rossi has a green card. What can you conclude from this?

Then, we had the "violating the laws of physics" nonsense. What laws? The laws about nuclear reactions requiring gamma radiation ---which are not really laws, but observations. When I point out quantum entanglement and dark matter, which really change the "laws" of physics, no one has an answer. You swallow dark matter whole without ever seeing a mote of 'dark matter.' Would matter repelling matter seem to change the "laws" of physics a little? Then I ask about nuclear instability and you respond that it is statistical. What you mean is that you have observed it to be statistical but cannot explain why a specific nucleus disintegrates and another does not.​

Rossi

9 December 2015: That would be the end of the diffusion of the technology, because nobody would invest a cent in a technology that does not have an intellectual property. I already said this many times, but maybe useful to repeat: also the computers have changed the world for good, but should Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have given away for free their IP, the enormous investments made for their tech could not have been made and the diffusion of their products would have been very limited. It is naif and irresponsible to give away graciously an important IP for the narcissistic pleasure to be considered a benefactor.​

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=27#comment-1138593

Perhaps Pteridine has collaboration of some kind in writing posts here. But then if he is Rossi, why doesn't he avail himself of such a service when writing in the Journal of Nuclear Physics?

We see from the journal entry cited above, by the way, that Rossi's enthusiasm for amassing money is motivated by an indomitable resolve to eschew narcissistic pleasures. How thoroughly admirable!

 

[Didymus]

It is interesting to consider why it was necessary to "invent" the neutrino. As I mentioned, not all beta particles were emitted with the same velocity even though the energy released by beta decay should be the same every time. Either some unknown mechanism was carrying away some energy or the Law of Conservation of Energy was flawed.
Rather than doubt energy conservation, Pauli (not Fermi though, IIRC, Fermi gave it its name) postulated the unobserved neutrino to carry away some energy and to balance the angular momentum. As it turned out, treating energy conservation as sacrosanct was the correct choice.

 

[Dancing David]

Thank you! I will remember it as Pauli

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

In fact, he identifies the source of heat as being virtually anything that might produce heat, meaning it could literally be anything at all, including our posited resistive heater.

Although he identifies the source of heat as you say, I was referring to
lines 24 to 33:

Heat from the resistor 42 is then transferred by conduction to the fuel layers 54 where it initiates a sequence of reactions, the last of which is reversible. These reactions, which are catalyzed by the presence of the nickel powder, are:
3LiAlH4 -> Li3AlH6 + 2Al + 3H2
2Li3AlH6 -> 6LiH + 2Al +3H2
2LiH + 2Al -> 2LiAl + H2

Likewise, lines 58 to 60 state

Within this mixture, nickel acts as a catalyst for the reaction, and is not itself a reagent.

Having specifically identified the reactions which produce heat, and specifically excluding nickel as a fuel, I really don't see how the patent would cover any LENR which transmutes nickel to copper. However, since I'm not a patent attorney, there might be one in the group who could comment.

 

[Horatius]

Having specifically identified the reactions which produce heat, and specifically excluding nickel as a fuel, I really don't see how the patent would cover any LENR which transmutes nickel to copper. However, since I'm not a patent attorney, there might be one in the group who could comment.

In a patent application, you usually need to provide one explicit example of a working embodiment of the apparatus or process, but you're not necessarily limited to that one example. Anything that falls within the bounds of the totality of the description and claims is potentially covered. Since he's left it very open-ended, he can still assert that this covers LENR, even though that isn't explicitly described or claimed in any great detail.

The Courts might not buy that, but Rossi isn't interested in when the Courts think. To him, this is just a tool to scam investors. If it ever ends up in court he's screwed up badly.

 

[Didymus]

"Although he identifies the source of heat as you say, I was referring to
lines 24 to 33:
Quote:
Heat from the resistor 42 is then transferred by conduction to the fuel layers 54 where it initiates a sequence of reactions, the last of which is reversible. These reactions, which are catalyzed by the presence of the nickel powder, are:
3LiAlH4 -> Li3AlH6 + 2Al + 3H2
2Li3AlH6 -> 6LiH + 2Al +3H2
2LiH + 2Al -> 2LiAl + H2"

Which raises an interesting point. Can one patent a chemical reaction which is so well known that it is quoted verbatim in Wikipedia?

"When heated LAH [Lithium Aluminum Hydride] decomposes in a three-step reaction mechanism:[12][13][14]

3 LiAlH4 → Li3AlH6 + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R1)
2 Li3AlH6 → 6 LiH + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R2)
2 LiH + 2 Al → 2 LiAl + H2 (R3)"

 

[Horatius]

Which raises an interesting point. Can one patent a chemical reaction which is so well known that it is quoted verbatim in Wikipedia?

By itself, no. It's clearly already part of the prior art if it has been published in Wikipedia.

But, there can be invention in a new combination of old parts, so long as the combination produces a new and non-obvious* mode of operation. So, something like this would still be potentially patentable, if it could be shown to work, and to (somehow) produce more energy than a person skilled in the art would expect it to produce.

As always, it's that last bit that's the hard part.






*Remembering always that the legal definition of "obvious" used in patent law is much narrower than the common usage. I've butted heads over this term more than once around here!

 

[Lukas1986]

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat commercial tests finished.

Andrea Rossi is back with his Cold Fusion claims and this time he claims this:

On February 17, 2016, a 350-day commercial test of a one megawatt heat plant based on Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat was completed. The event must be considered historic since it’s the first time an industrially useful amount of energy is produced over such a long time from this kind of yet unexplained radiation-free nuclear reaction—LENR or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

To be clear, the report from the one-year trial, which has been controlled by a major independent third party certification institute, will be released only in about a month, and until then no official information is provided on the test result. However, multiple sources have told me that the test has been successful.

Taken from: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2...nt-one-year-1-megawatt-e-cat-trial-completed/

Sorry that I am here extremely skeptical here and that I do not consider it a historical event because the test was done by Andrea Rossi along with his partner HEAT:

The test has been undertaken by Andrea Rossi and his US industrial partner Industrial Heat, and according to Rossi, commercialisation of similar industrial heat plants will be initiated as soon as possible, provided that the result is positive. Industrial Heat has acquired the right to produce and sell E-Cat based technology in, as far as I have been told, North, Central and South America, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Taken from: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2...nt-one-year-1-megawatt-e-cat-trial-completed/

I am posting this to know what you guys here think. I wish you a nice day.